Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.12

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.190

Relief against forfeiture

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may relieve a tenant against a forfeiture of a lease and restore him or her to his or her former estate, as in other cases provided by law, where application for such relief is made within thirty days after the forfeiture is declared by the judgment of the court, as provided in this chapter. The application may be made by a tenant or subtenant, or a mortgagee of the term, or any person interested in the continuance of the term. It must be made upon petition, setting forth the facts upon which the relief is sought, and be verified by the applicant. Notice of the application, with a copy of the petition, must be served on the plaintiff in the judgment, who may appear and contest the application. In no case shall the application be granted except on condition that full payment of rent due, or full performance of conditions of covenants stipulated, so far as the same is practicable, be first made.
[ 2010 c 8 s 19015; 1891 c 96 s 21; RRS s 830. Prior: 1890 p 80 s 22.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: Philip D. Burgess And Linda L. Burgess, Res. v. Rowena Crossan, App.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philip D. Burgess And Linda L. Burgess, Res. v. Rowena Crossan, App. (2015) washctapp · cites it 3× “Crossan claims that the trial court erred when it denied her petition for relief from forfeiture under RCW 59.12.190. That statute allows a court to grant a tenant relief from forfeiture of the lease only if the tenant has paid rent due in full or fully performed conditions of…”
Shoemaker v. Shaug (1971) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 59.12.190. Since Shaug did not elect to pursue a summary remedy by claiming unlawful detainer, the relief against forfeiture provided by RCW 59.”
Ledaura, LLC v. Gould (2010) washctapp · cites it 2× “The Complaint alleged that the Option was not enforceable because, after the trial court ruled in Ledaura’s favor in the earlier unlawful detainer action, Buyers failed to exercise their right to avoid forfeiture of the Lease under RCW 59.12.190. 6 ¶19 In response to Ledaura’s…”
Ronald Travis Roth v. Hempzen Enterprises, Ltd. (2017) washctapp · cites it 6× “Finally, HempZen claims that the rejection of the declaration prevented it from obtaining relief against forfeiture under RCW 59.12.190. Ronald Roth defends the trial court's denial of the motion for revision because HempZen violated the lease and failed to cure the breach…”
LEDAURA, LLC v. Gould (2010) washctapp · cites it 2× “The Complaint alleged that the Option was not enforceable because, after the trial court ruled in Ledaura's favor in the earlier unlawful detainer action, Buyers failed to exercise their right to avoid forfeiture of the Lease under RCW 59.12.190. [6] ¶ 19 In response to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.